Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376044 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-11 13:04 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-23 00:06 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:04 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-11 11:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 16:49 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-12 10:44 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:00 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 15:21 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 16:19 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 21:00 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "K_h" <KHolmes@SX729.com> - 2016-02-11 13:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 20:58 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-11 23:28 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-13 14:17 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 06:53 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 19:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 20:06 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 20:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-11 23:37 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics GSS <gurcharn.sandhu@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:46 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-02-12 06:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 09:51 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-13 08:35 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 21:28 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-14 10:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-14 11:50 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 12:04 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics CDH <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 20:45 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 20:09 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 20:22 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 06:56 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 22:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 00:06 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-18 14:35 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-12 00:13 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-12 10:57 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-12 11:14 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 01:23 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 04:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-02-12 06:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-12 17:00 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 11:16 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 11:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 09:58 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 21:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-18 15:03 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:14 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-18 22:36 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 23:20 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-19 14:18 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-19 07:27 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-19 09:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-18 19:25 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 11:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-14 12:13 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Adrian Ferent <adrferent@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 12:27 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 12:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-18 15:05 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 10:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 22:08 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 23:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:25 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 06:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 08:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-19 17:52 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 10:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-19 21:00 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-19 12:56 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 19:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-20 10:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 19:04 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 20:27 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 06:22 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:12 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 08:00 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 08:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 09:35 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:58 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 09:25 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 09:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 09:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 17:52 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 10:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 18:28 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 11:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 10:06 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 14:57 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 19:13 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 19:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 21:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 19:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 21:43 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 06:22 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 06:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 06:56 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 07:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 07:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 08:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 08:43 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 11:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 15:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 20:57 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 07:58 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 09:23 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 09:43 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 09:51 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 10:21 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 08:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 08:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 21:57 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 07:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 08:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 08:20 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-18 23:04 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 23:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-19 12:15 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 23:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-20 13:32 +0100
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-21 14:57 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 23:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 00:06 -0800
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 09:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <4bydnQi_RoSIzCLLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376109 |
On 2/12/16 2/12/16 6:46 AM, GSS wrote: > In current mathematical models whole physical phenomenon is deemed to take > place in metric space and physical space is treated as a redundant entity [...] You OBVIOUSLY do not understand what science is all about, and what modern physics is actually doing. Science is about MODELING THE WORLD. So is physics. All of our theories are MODELS ABOUT VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE WORLD. In particular, space is a MODEL. Your attempt to distinguish "metric space" and "physical space" is nonsense -- you are mixing up model and world; that's invalid. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 08:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <99fb9cd1-03da-490d-90d8-f394b1af2388@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376170 |
W dniu sobota, 13 lutego 2016 16:51:51 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > In particular, space is a MODEL. Your attempt to distinguish "metric space" and > "physical space" is nonsense -- you are mixing up model and world; that's invalid. Nonsense... After all these metrics are always wrt the flat space: diag = 1,1,1,1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 21:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <erOdnWhtYqnzaSLLnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376175 |
On 2/13/16 2/13/16 10:35 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 13 lutego 2016 16:51:51 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: >> In particular, space is a MODEL. Your attempt to distinguish "metric space" and >> "physical space" is nonsense -- you are mixing up model and world; that's invalid. > > Nonsense... > After all these metrics are always wrt the flat space: diag = 1,1,1,1. The nonsense is YOURS. You are just making stuff up and pretending it is true. Hint: these are spaceTIME metrics. Hint2: it does not make sense to attempt to discuss a "metric wrt another" (wrt = "with respect to"). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 10:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ebbf2f1d-9f96-4e4f-a6de-17cef0ea8205@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376192 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 lutego 2016 04:28:48 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > After all these metrics are always wrt the flat space: diag = 1,1,1,1. > > The nonsense is YOURS. You are just making stuff up and pretending it is true. > > Hint: these are spaceTIME metrics. > Hint2: it does not make sense to attempt to discuss a "metric wrt > another" (wrt = "with respect to"). You are very poor in the math and logics. Hint: 1. the spacetime is a math being only. 2. in the math everything is wrt something other. The knowledge - sciense has been always about the relations, laws, theorems, ect.; never obout any absolute dogma. Your relativity is for uneducated/untrained imbeciles only, babe. It's greatly to short for any rationaly thinkink being..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 19:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a4ae6b27-144f-46a7-b8b7-4e0d589f5f2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376100 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:38:02 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 2/11/16 2/11/16 10:55 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Question: is a LIGO result being > > used to discredit Loop Quantum Gravity? > > Certainly not. Your fantasies are just that -- fantasies. > > In addition to writing the paper announcing their observation of an unambiguous > gravitational wave, the LIGO team also wrote a (much more technical) paper on > how they applied GR to their observation and find it is fully consistent with > the final inspiral of two black holes with masses 39 M_solar and 32 M_solar. > > Indeed I suspect that the complexity of this analysis, plus their natural desire > to publish the two papers simultaneously, was important in delaying the > announcement. > > All this has nothing whatsoever to do with LQG. > > > Tom Roberts Thank you. Tom - which two black holes of 39, 32 solar masses are these putative singularities that splashed this wave? Is there a copy of this Phys. Rev. Let. piece online or is it to the library? Finding a lump or ejecta as of the necessary motion of massy objects so to affect a change in gravity is justified, also, classically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 11:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <y7SdnTujUKDFI13LnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #376146 |
On 2/12/16 2/12/16 9:32 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Is there a copy of this Phys. Rev. Let. > piece online or is it to the library? If you cant figure out how to find such papers, you are highly unlikely to be able to understand them. Hint 1: arxiv.org is your friend. As is Google.com . Hint 2: the author is the LIGO collaboration Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 12:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3001b9a3-1515-483d-88b2-a1053aa8c320@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376224 |
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 9:50:19 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 2/12/16 2/12/16 9:32 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Is there a copy of this Phys. Rev. Let. > > piece online or is it to the library? > > If you cant figure out how to find such papers, you are highly unlikely to be > able to understand them. > > Hint 1: arxiv.org is your friend. As is Google.com . > Hint 2: the author is the LIGO collaboration > > > Tom Roberts I imagine that as a tome instead of an essay, it would be on the QC section of the shelves, or stacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress_Classification:Class_Q_--_Science In the stacks. (That's physics - astronomy is around the corner.) http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph/recent I wonder that it's the same as the article in Phys.Rev.Let. The name of the event is GW150914. http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+GW150914/0/1/0/all/0/1 "The gravitational-wave (GW) signal GW150914 detected on September14, 201509:50:45UTC by the AdvancedLIGO (aLIGO) detectors (Abbott et al. 2016a) has been shown to originate from the coalescence of a binary BH (BBH) with masses of 36+5 −4 M and 29+4 −4 M (in the source frame, see §2). This GW discovery provides the first robust confirmation of several theoretical predictions: (i) that “heavy” BHs exist, (ii) that BBHs form in nature, and (iii) that BBHs merge within the age of the Universe at a detectable rate." http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03840 "The data around the time of the event were analysed coherently across the LIGO network using a suite of accurate waveform models that describe gravitational waves from a compact binary system in general relativity." I am most interested to be seeing any other confirmation that this entire system exists. From http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03868, "Swift follow-up of the Gravitational Wave source GW150914": "The Advanced LIGO observatory recently reported the first direct detection of gravitational waves. We report on observations taken with the Swift satellite two days after the GW trigger. No new X-ray, optical, UV or hard X-ray sources were detected in our observations, which were focussed on nearby galaxies in the gravitational wave error region and we discuss the implications of this." The style of the LIGO's abstract, that they've fit the data to a model of theirs and thus conclude that's its source, wouldn't be so bad if it didn't break the scientific method so much. Now, maybe I've missed the parallel research that it could confirm (or rather, scientifically, not falsify), on the existence of this system of a binary pulsar or binary black hold system of 20-30 and 15-25 solar masses that merges where we coordinate the LIGO event with the other before and after feature of the event, but it seems like they just have a model given the two-detector LIGO configuration and say there's no other observables. That's model-fitting, not confirmation (not falsification).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CDH <celinedh@bernhardine.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9qp1i$1e8v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376224 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 2/12/16 2/12/16 9:32 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> Is there a copy of this Phys. Rev. Let. >> piece online or is it to the library? > > If you cant figure out how to find such papers, you are highly unlikely > to be able to understand them. > > Hint 1: arxiv.org is your friend. As is Google.com . > Hint 2: the author is the LIGO collaboration Never see a mirror without inherited errorbars,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 20:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <72285d81-3fa7-4b83-97d5-b621bbca30fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376080 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:53:24 PM UTC-6, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 11:04:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would > > never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according > > to them). > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational > > waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with > > (according to them). > > > > Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, > > and we now have a clear announcement that confirms observational evidence: > > - that black holes not only exist, but that they merge as predicted by > > the theory > > - that binary pairs of black holes exist > > - that gravitational waves exist, in exactly the manner predicted by the > > theory > > > > So really, I want to see how skeptics splutter about this. How will they > > respond? > > > > Some possibilities: > > "OK, so the Higgs boson and gravitational waves do exist after all, but > > what good are they? Why did we spend all that money if they don't do > > anything to improve the lives of ordinary people?" > > > > "Just because the observations confirm the predictions of the theory > > doesn't prove that those theories are right. There could be a zillion > > other, more ordinary explanations of those observations, and therefore > > I'll never be convinced that quantum field theory and general relativity > > are right -- never." > > > > "All the data are faked. It has to be the case. It's MUCH more likely > > that the whole shebang is a conspiracy of faked results to protect the > > reputations of everyone involved, than it is that quantum field theory > > and general relativity are correct." > > > > "The results should be ignored and should mean nothing, because the > > experiments shouldn't have been done in the first place, because there > > was no believable theoretical motivation to do them. You are all foolish > > to have ever looked for those experimental results, and you should > > ignore all of them." > > > > "OK, I was wrong. The data do in fact exhibit support for quantum field > > theory and general relativity. But this doesn't make me feel any better > > about the theories, because they still seem nonsensical to me. And if > > the theories were really right, then I should be able to make sense of > > them." > > > > Which of these, oh skeptics of modern physics, is you? > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I'm skeptical, scientifically, and those are straw-men > there, OB. > > > First of all, whatever signal they got, there's no real > association of it with any event. > > Second, the timing between first and second detection > seems the bit off. > > Third, similarly to the Higgs boson which wasn't > detected, instead penciled in between the humps of > what was detected, the bow shock then ringing is > a la the tachyonic before and after whatever > event it is (or lack thereof). > > So, besides their statue crying blood, and "not > invalidating General Relavity", there's not > necessarily so much to be skeptical about, except > the outrageous hoopla of the unlearned about the > bandwagon and the after-the-"fact" "I would have > told you so". > > You have that on there already? Put something > like "scientists have that falsification is > negative". > > Higgs is already drying out and still shakes, this > "gravitational wave" can wait until reasonably enough > more are put online (they're cheap to run) and what > real correlations there are with events can be > written out. > > > The article is "Laser interferometer online at > scale receives an event. Local scale of experiment > to detect gravity waves established by trial and error." > > That's pretty much it. yup
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 20:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a45f343a-8141-42d7-bcb4-31e807e1ac52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376085 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 10:09:30 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:53:24 PM UTC-6, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 11:04:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] > > > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > > on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would > > > never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according > > > to them). > > > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > > on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational > > > waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with > > > (according to them). > > > > > > Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, > > > and we now have a clear announcement that confirms observational evidence: > > > - that black holes not only exist, but that they merge as predicted by > > > the theory > > > - that binary pairs of black holes exist > > > - that gravitational waves exist, in exactly the manner predicted by the > > > theory > > > > > > So really, I want to see how skeptics splutter about this. How will they > > > respond? > > > > > > Some possibilities: > > > "OK, so the Higgs boson and gravitational waves do exist after all, but > > > what good are they? Why did we spend all that money if they don't do > > > anything to improve the lives of ordinary people?" > > > > > > "Just because the observations confirm the predictions of the theory > > > doesn't prove that those theories are right. There could be a zillion > > > other, more ordinary explanations of those observations, and therefore > > > I'll never be convinced that quantum field theory and general relativity > > > are right -- never." > > > > > > "All the data are faked. It has to be the case. It's MUCH more likely > > > that the whole shebang is a conspiracy of faked results to protect the > > > reputations of everyone involved, than it is that quantum field theory > > > and general relativity are correct." > > > > > > "The results should be ignored and should mean nothing, because the > > > experiments shouldn't have been done in the first place, because there > > > was no believable theoretical motivation to do them. You are all foolish > > > to have ever looked for those experimental results, and you should > > > ignore all of them." > > > > > > "OK, I was wrong. The data do in fact exhibit support for quantum field > > > theory and general relativity. But this doesn't make me feel any better > > > about the theories, because they still seem nonsensical to me. And if > > > the theories were really right, then I should be able to make sense of > > > them." > > > > > > Which of these, oh skeptics of modern physics, is you? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > I'm skeptical, scientifically, and those are straw-men > > there, OB. > > > > > > First of all, whatever signal they got, there's no real > > association of it with any event. > > > > Second, the timing between first and second detection > > seems the bit off. > > > > Third, similarly to the Higgs boson which wasn't > > detected, instead penciled in between the humps of > > what was detected, the bow shock then ringing is > > a la the tachyonic before and after whatever > > event it is (or lack thereof). > > > > So, besides their statue crying blood, and "not > > invalidating General Relavity", there's not > > necessarily so much to be skeptical about, except > > the outrageous hoopla of the unlearned about the > > bandwagon and the after-the-"fact" "I would have > > told you so". > > > > You have that on there already? Put something > > like "scientists have that falsification is > > negative". > > > > Higgs is already drying out and still shakes, this > > "gravitational wave" can wait until reasonably enough > > more are put online (they're cheap to run) and what > > real correlations there are with events can be > > written out. > > > > > > The article is "Laser interferometer online at > > scale receives an event. Local scale of experiment > > to detect gravity waves established by trial and error." > > > > That's pretty much it. > > yup We will find that the frequency sound is chaotic and unmeaningful... primarily because all built interferometers are all Earth-based.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 06:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9kkp4$85f$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376080 |
On 2/11/2016 9:53 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 11:04:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] >> >> A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent >> on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would >> never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according >> to them). >> >> A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent >> on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational >> waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with >> (according to them). >> >> Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, >> and we now have a clear announcement that confirms observational evidence: >> - that black holes not only exist, but that they merge as predicted by >> the theory >> - that binary pairs of black holes exist >> - that gravitational waves exist, in exactly the manner predicted by the >> theory >> >> So really, I want to see how skeptics splutter about this. How will they >> respond? >> >> Some possibilities: >> "OK, so the Higgs boson and gravitational waves do exist after all, but >> what good are they? Why did we spend all that money if they don't do >> anything to improve the lives of ordinary people?" >> >> "Just because the observations confirm the predictions of the theory >> doesn't prove that those theories are right. There could be a zillion >> other, more ordinary explanations of those observations, and therefore >> I'll never be convinced that quantum field theory and general relativity >> are right -- never." >> >> "All the data are faked. It has to be the case. It's MUCH more likely >> that the whole shebang is a conspiracy of faked results to protect the >> reputations of everyone involved, than it is that quantum field theory >> and general relativity are correct." >> >> "The results should be ignored and should mean nothing, because the >> experiments shouldn't have been done in the first place, because there >> was no believable theoretical motivation to do them. You are all foolish >> to have ever looked for those experimental results, and you should >> ignore all of them." >> >> "OK, I was wrong. The data do in fact exhibit support for quantum field >> theory and general relativity. But this doesn't make me feel any better >> about the theories, because they still seem nonsensical to me. And if >> the theories were really right, then I should be able to make sense of >> them." >> >> Which of these, oh skeptics of modern physics, is you? >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I'm skeptical, scientifically, and those are straw-men > there, OB. > > > First of all, whatever signal they got, there's no real > association of it with any event. The signals were seen at two different detectors. > > Second, the timing between first and second detection > seems the bit off. Of course, and the delay is due to the different location of the detectors. Like two stations picking up thunder at slightly different times, because of the propagation speed of the sound. > > Third, similarly to the Higgs boson which wasn't > detected, instead penciled in between the humps of > what was detected, the bow shock then ringing is > a la the tachyonic before and after whatever > event it is (or lack thereof). I could make no sense of what you said here. > > So, besides their statue crying blood, and "not > invalidating General Relavity", there's not > necessarily so much to be skeptical about, except > the outrageous hoopla of the unlearned about the > bandwagon and the after-the-"fact" "I would have > told you so". > > You have that on there already? Put something > like "scientists have that falsification is > negative". > > Higgs is already drying out and still shakes, this > "gravitational wave" can wait until reasonably enough > more are put online (they're cheap to run) and what > real correlations there are with events can be > written out. > > > The article is "Laser interferometer online at > scale receives an event. Local scale of experiment > to detect gravity waves established by trial and error." > > That's pretty much it. > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 22:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf493713-ed91-4f2f-9b9d-b04fa0a8fa7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376044 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 11:04:09 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would > never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according > to them). > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational > waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with > (according to them). > > Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, > and we now have a clear announcement that confirms observational evidence: > - that black holes not only exist, but that they merge as predicted by > the theory > - that binary pairs of black holes exist > - that gravitational waves exist, in exactly the manner predicted by the > theory > > So really, I want to see how skeptics splutter about this. How will they > respond? > > Some possibilities: > "OK, so the Higgs boson and gravitational waves do exist after all, but > what good are they? Why did we spend all that money if they don't do > anything to improve the lives of ordinary people?" > > "Just because the observations confirm the predictions of the theory > doesn't prove that those theories are right. There could be a zillion > other, more ordinary explanations of those observations, and therefore > I'll never be convinced that quantum field theory and general relativity > are right -- never." > > "All the data are faked. It has to be the case. It's MUCH more likely > that the whole shebang is a conspiracy of faked results to protect the > reputations of everyone involved, than it is that quantum field theory > and general relativity are correct." > > "The results should be ignored and should mean nothing, because the > experiments shouldn't have been done in the first place, because there > was no believable theoretical motivation to do them. You are all foolish > to have ever looked for those experimental results, and you should > ignore all of them." > > "OK, I was wrong. The data do in fact exhibit support for quantum field > theory and general relativity. But this doesn't make me feel any better > about the theories, because they still seem nonsensical to me. And if > the theories were really right, then I should be able to make sense of > them." > > Which of these, oh skeptics of modern physics, is you? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The following links sums up the LIGO claim. <shrug> http://www.buzzfeed.com/arielknutson/people-who-found-jesus-in-their-food#.lpGymennN Ahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 00:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <363a1120-a959-4ea5-8317-3f980aff4548@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376103 |
Go Odd, Tom, Jan! 😊
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 14:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <na4h73$ldd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #376103 |
On 12.02.2016 07:40, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The following links sums up the LIGO claim. <shrug> > > http://www.buzzfeed.com/arielknutson/people-who-found-jesus-in-their-food#.lpGymennN > > Ahahaha... > Experimental evidence is frustrating, isn't it? :-D https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 00:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56BD9428.5057@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376044 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would > never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according > to them). > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational > waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with > (according to them). > > Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, Oh pulease give me a break already.... There is no mention on this page of a "Higgs bosons". http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2013/ All it reads is a generic word that can mean ...anything. "discovery of a 'mechanism'". and on this page it reads: "This particle is *consistent* with the Higgs boson" http://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson Being 'consistent' does not make it a Higgs boson. Get Real! The nobel prize is a fraud, and the announcement as you put it: "the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established" IS A FUCKIN LIE!!!! The Starmaker He has consistently denied the charges...until today he changed his plee to guilty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 10:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56BE2B21.1F65@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376105 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would > > never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according > > to them). > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational > > waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with > > (according to them). > > > > Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, > > Oh pulease give me a break already.... > > There is no mention on this page of a "Higgs bosons". > http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2013/ > > All it reads is a generic word that can mean ...anything. > > "discovery of a 'mechanism'". > > and on this page it reads: > > "This particle is *consistent* with the Higgs boson" > http://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson > > Being 'consistent' does not make it a Higgs boson. Get Real! > > The nobel prize is a fraud, and the announcement as you put it: > > "the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established" > > IS A FUCKIN LIE!!!! > > The Starmaker > > He has consistently denied the charges...until today he changed his plee to guilty. A group of researchers, however, has casted doubt on whether or not the supposed particle discovered during experiments with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the largest and most powerful particle collider in the world, is the long sought after Higgs Boson.Nov 10, 2014 https://www.google.com/#q=has+the+higgs+boson+really+been+found http://www.techtimes.com/articles/19832/20141110/did-or-did-not-cern-discover-higgs-boson-particle-we-deserve-to-know.htm then of course you have fraudelent newswriters: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/06/25/confirmed-definitely-higgs-boson-found-lhc/#.Vr4pkUCbErc That have Headlines that read: Confirmed: That Was Definitely the Higgs Boson Found at LHC and end their articles with... "More work will be necessary, in order to both obtain stronger statistical proof of the new findings..." Bottom line... it's all about.. to ensure the continuing supply of funds. The Starmaker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 11:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56BE2F2D.4AFE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #376128 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] > > > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > > on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would > > > never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according > > > to them). > > > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > > on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational > > > waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with > > > (according to them). > > > > > > Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, > > > > Oh pulease give me a break already.... > > > > There is no mention on this page of a "Higgs bosons". > > http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2013/ > > > > All it reads is a generic word that can mean ...anything. > > > > "discovery of a 'mechanism'". > > > > and on this page it reads: > > > > "This particle is *consistent* with the Higgs boson" > > http://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson > > > > Being 'consistent' does not make it a Higgs boson. Get Real! > > > > The nobel prize is a fraud, and the announcement as you put it: > > > > "the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established" > > > > IS A FUCKIN LIE!!!! > > > > The Starmaker > > > > He has consistently denied the charges...until today he changed his plee to guilty. > > A group of researchers, however, has casted doubt on whether or not the supposed particle discovered during experiments with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), > the largest and most powerful particle collider in the world, is the long sought after Higgs Boson.Nov 10, 2014 > > https://www.google.com/#q=has+the+higgs+boson+really+been+found > http://www.techtimes.com/articles/19832/20141110/did-or-did-not-cern-discover-higgs-boson-particle-we-deserve-to-know.htm > > then of course you have fraudelent newswriters: > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/06/25/confirmed-definitely-higgs-boson-found-lhc/#.Vr4pkUCbErc > > That have Headlines that read: Confirmed: That Was Definitely the Higgs Boson Found at LHC > > and end their articles with... > "More work will be necessary, in order to both obtain stronger statistical proof of the new findings..." > > Bottom line... it's all about.. > > to ensure the continuing supply > of funds. > > The Starmaker I mean, really...let's deal with reality. The first thing you see here Highlighted by Google in a square outline box is: A group of researchers, however, has casted doubt on whether or not the supposed particle discovered during experiments with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the largest and most powerful particle collider in the world, is the long sought after Higgs Boson.Nov 10, 2014 https://www.google.com/#q=has+the+higgs+boson+really+been+found It certaintly doesn't sound to me that 'the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established'. This ODD guy is just...conning you. He's lying. He's making this stuff up....i have no idea why. You cannot fool nature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 01:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b945c23d-3d63-4e8c-92ed-ec1effad2310@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376044 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:04:09 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would > never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according > to them). > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational > waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with > (according to them). > > Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, > and we now have a clear announcement that confirms observational evidence: > - that black holes not only exist, but that they merge as predicted by > the theory > - that binary pairs of black holes exist > - that gravitational waves exist, in exactly the manner predicted by the > theory > > So really, I want to see how skeptics splutter about this. How will they > respond? > > Some possibilities: > "OK, so the Higgs boson and gravitational waves do exist after all, but > what good are they? Why did we spend all that money if they don't do > anything to improve the lives of ordinary people?" > > "Just because the observations confirm the predictions of the theory > doesn't prove that those theories are right. There could be a zillion > other, more ordinary explanations of those observations, and therefore > I'll never be convinced that quantum field theory and general relativity > are right -- never." > > "All the data are faked. It has to be the case. It's MUCH more likely > that the whole shebang is a conspiracy of faked results to protect the > reputations of everyone involved, than it is that quantum field theory > and general relativity are correct." > > "The results should be ignored and should mean nothing, because the > experiments shouldn't have been done in the first place, because there > was no believable theoretical motivation to do them. You are all foolish > to have ever looked for those experimental results, and you should > ignore all of them." > > "OK, I was wrong. The data do in fact exhibit support for quantum field > theory and general relativity. But this doesn't make me feel any better > about the theories, because they still seem nonsensical to me. And if > the theories were really right, then I should be able to make sense of > them." > > Which of these, oh skeptics of modern physics, is you? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ****************************************** Dear friends in this group: The news about this started circulating on Tuesday saying on Thursday the proof will be ready. Come Wednesday the number of news items increased three fold Thursday is the day. Come Thursday all news was about the promised gravitational waves predicted more than a hundred years ago by the GENERAL RELATIVITY of THE ALL-KNOWING ALBERT EINSTEIN. Late Thursday and Friday all talk about that disappeared. I am not saying there are no gravitational waves, but they have nothing to do with RELATIVITY. Best regards Omar Shabsigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 04:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b8358d6-bce5-4629-86f1-c411751dd886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376107 |
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 2:23:23 AM UTC-7, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > > I am not saying there are no gravitational waves, but they have nothing > to do with RELATIVITY. > > Best regards > > Omar Shabsigh And those pesky lights you see in the night sky have nothing to do with some fabled suns far, far away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 06:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f112fda-2a9e-4d5a-957a-d66ed0ecb301@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376107 |
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:23:23 AM UTC-8, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:04:09 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would > > never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according > > to them). > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational > > waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with > > (according to them). > > > > Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, > > and we now have a clear announcement that confirms observational evidence: > > - that black holes not only exist, but that they merge as predicted by > > the theory > > - that binary pairs of black holes exist > > - that gravitational waves exist, in exactly the manner predicted by the > > theory > > > > So really, I want to see how skeptics splutter about this. How will they > > respond? > > > > Some possibilities: > > "OK, so the Higgs boson and gravitational waves do exist after all, but > > what good are they? Why did we spend all that money if they don't do > > anything to improve the lives of ordinary people?" > > > > "Just because the observations confirm the predictions of the theory > > doesn't prove that those theories are right. There could be a zillion > > other, more ordinary explanations of those observations, and therefore > > I'll never be convinced that quantum field theory and general relativity > > are right -- never." > > > > "All the data are faked. It has to be the case. It's MUCH more likely > > that the whole shebang is a conspiracy of faked results to protect the > > reputations of everyone involved, than it is that quantum field theory > > and general relativity are correct." > > > > "The results should be ignored and should mean nothing, because the > > experiments shouldn't have been done in the first place, because there > > was no believable theoretical motivation to do them. You are all foolish > > to have ever looked for those experimental results, and you should > > ignore all of them." > > > > "OK, I was wrong. The data do in fact exhibit support for quantum field > > theory and general relativity. But this doesn't make me feel any better > > about the theories, because they still seem nonsensical to me. And if > > the theories were really right, then I should be able to make sense of > > them." > > > > Which of these, oh skeptics of modern physics, is you? > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > ****************************************** > > Dear friends in this group: > > The news about this started circulating on Tuesday saying on Thursday the proof will be ready. Come Wednesday the number of news items increased three fold Thursday is the day. Come Thursday all news was about the promised gravitational waves predicted more than a hundred years ago by the GENERAL RELATIVITY of THE ALL-KNOWING ALBERT EINSTEIN. Late Thursday and Friday all talk about that disappeared. > > > > I am not saying there are no gravitational waves, but they have nothing to do with RELATIVITY. > > > > Best regards > > > > Omar Shabsigh The Omar CRETIN is back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web